Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make referral banner dismissible #33925

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jan 24, 2024
Merged

Conversation

gijoe0295
Copy link
Contributor

@gijoe0295 gijoe0295 commented Jan 4, 2024

Details

This PR makes referral banner dismissible temporarily.

Fixed Issues

$ #32499
PROPOSAL: #32499 (comment)

Tests

  1. Press FAB >> Start chat
  2. Press close referral banner
  3. Verify the banner is closed
  4. Verify the text input remains focused
  5. Close the RHP
  6. Repeat step 1
  7. Verify the banner appears again
  8. Repeat those steps with Request money and Search page
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

NA

QA Steps

  1. Press FAB >> Start chat
  2. Press close referral banner
  3. Verify the banner is closed
  4. Verify the text input remains focused
  5. Close the RHP
  6. Repeat step 1
  7. Verify the banner appears again
  8. Repeat those steps with Request money and Search page
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-01-04.at.14.52.46-compressed.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-01-04.at.14.51.22-compressed.mov
iOS: Native
ios-compressed.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
safari-compressed.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-01-04.at.14.29.34-compressed.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop-compressed.mov

@gijoe0295 gijoe0295 marked this pull request as ready for review January 4, 2024 07:54
@gijoe0295 gijoe0295 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 4, 2024 07:54
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from abdulrahuman5196 and dannymcclain and removed request for a team January 4, 2024 07:54
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 4, 2024

@dannymcclain @abdulrahuman5196 One of you needs to copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

dannymcclain
dannymcclain previously approved these changes Jan 4, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@dannymcclain dannymcclain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks to be working as expected to me. From a design perspective I think we're all good, but please make sure to still get a review from someone with a more technical background. 👍

@gijoe0295
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abdulrahuman5196 Please review.

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, Will review today.

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewing now

width={20}
fill={this.props.theme.icon}
/>
<PressableWithoutFeedback
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems the pressable and the icon have same size.

Screen.Recording.2024-01-11.at.3.31.42.PM.mov

Shouldn't we have some extra size for pressing? For now both the icon size and the pressing place size is 20

@dannymcclain yours thoughts on this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dannymcclain what do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good call—ideally the pressable area of the x icon should be at least a 44px square.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@gijoe0295 gijoe0295 Jan 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dannymcclain Can you confirm whether it is 40 or 44? 40 is the pressable area of the back (and other) button.

Screenshot 2024-01-13 at 02 52 30

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But if we do so, the button will move to the left like this:

Before Screenshot 2024-01-13 at 03 13 33
After Screenshot 2024-01-13 at 03 15 22

As the previous Info icon did not have pressable space as 40 either, I suggest we keep it the same, i.e. keep the pressable and the icon having the same size as 20.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Gotcha—40 would be acceptable if that's what we do elsewhere.

I see what you're talking about in your before and after. The right thing to do here IMO would be to adjust the padding on the actual banner so that the x icon gets the proper amount of clickable space without impacting the size of the banner/layout of the icon. @Expensify/design do y'all think it's worth it to adjust the banner to give that icon a proper amount of clickable area?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with that Danny. But I could have sworn we can also solve for this using React Native's hitslop, right? This we we can keep the button where it is but just define a greater hit area around around the button.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@gijoe0295 gijoe0295 Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@abdulrahuman5196 @dannymcclain I've updated, please check. I tried to keep everything visually the same though it requires some hard-coding for the padding.

Or we can do nothing and the hitSlop will be automatically calculated.

Before Screenshot 2024-01-16 at 14 37 41
After Screenshot 2024-01-16 at 14 34 19

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor

tgolen commented Jan 19, 2024

What's the next step on this PR? I am beginning to work on #34387 which is blocked on the functionality in this PR. I'll start working off the branch, but I also want to encourage everyone to work with urgency to get this completed. It should be reviewed or updated every day and it's been 4 days with no activity.

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, it's miss from my end. Will test and update first thing in my morning and close this out ASAP.

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewing now

<ReferralProgramCTA referralContentType={CONST.REFERRAL_PROGRAM.CONTENT_TYPES.REFER_FRIEND} />
</View>
<>
{shouldShowReferralCTA && (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this works, does it? I think there is some confusion with the SearchPage component: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1705959664098999?thread_ts=1701232130.505309&cid=C01GTK53T8Q

Copy link
Contributor Author

@gijoe0295 gijoe0295 Jan 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Despite the problem with removing old file, it works fine for me.

@abdulrahuman5196 TL;DR: SearchPage.js was moved to SearchPage/index.js but the original file (SearchPage.js) was not removed. But the changes in this PR were made in the latest file (SearchPage/index.js) so we don't need to worry about it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, looks like the old file SearchPage.js will be getting removed. Thanks!

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor

tgolen commented Jan 23, 2024

Bump @abdulrahuman5196 for review, please. Let's get this one finished up.

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

Working on another critical PR yesterday and today. Will close out that and start in 30 minutes. Sorry for the delay

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

NAB: @gijoe0295 Kindly update the Tests in author's checklist to reflect all the pages which has this change.

@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

abdulrahuman5196 commented Jan 23, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

  • I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
  • I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
    • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
    • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
    • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
  • I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • If a new component is created I verified that:
    • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
    • The file is named correctly
    • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
    • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
    • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
    • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
    • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
    • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
  • I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-01-24.at.12.47.33.AM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-01-24.at.12.53.26.AM.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-01-24.at.12.44.58.AM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-01-24.at.12.46.05.AM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-01-24.at.12.42.35.AM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-01-24.at.12.43.48.AM.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@abdulrahuman5196 abdulrahuman5196 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes looks good and works well. Reviewers checklist is also complete.

All yours. @tgolen / @joelbettner

🎀 👀 🎀
C+ Reviewed

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from joelbettner January 23, 2024 19:39
@abdulrahuman5196
Copy link
Contributor

@gijoe0295 Kindly also update the testing screenshots after high number of changes, since we added changes in couple more pages after last update.

@gijoe0295
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated.

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor

tgolen commented Jan 24, 2024

All yours @joelbettner

@joelbettner joelbettner merged commit bcd5939 into Expensify:main Jan 24, 2024
18 of 21 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/joelbettner in version: 1.4.32-0 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.4.32-5 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants